IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v64y2020i3p664-681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucratic Responsiveness to LGBT Americans

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth Lowande
  • Andrew Proctor

Abstract

Marriage rights were extended to same‐sex couples in the United States in 2015. However, anecdotes of bureaucratic noncompliance (in the form of bias or denial of license issuance) raise the possibility that de jure marriage equality has not led to equality in practice. We investigate this by conducting a nationwide audit experiment of local‐level marriage license–granting officials in the United States. These officials vary in the constituencies they serve, as well as how they are selected, allowing us to evaluate long‐standing hypotheses about bureaucratic responsiveness. Overall, we find no evidence of systematic discrimination against same‐sex couples—regardless of responsiveness measure, institutions, ideology, or prior state legal history. We find, however, that among same‐sex couples, officials tended to be more responsive to lesbian couples. In contrast to evidence in other areas of service provision, such as policing and federal assistance programs, we find bureaucrats tasked with provision of marriage services show little evidence of discrimination.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth Lowande & Andrew Proctor, 2020. "Bureaucratic Responsiveness to LGBT Americans," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 664-681, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:3:p:664-681
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12493
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12493?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Gregory A. Huber & Sanford C. Gordon, 2004. "Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when It Runs for Office?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 247-263, April.
    3. Butler, Daniel M. & Crabtree, Charles, 2017. "Moving Beyond Measurement: Adapting Audit Studies to Test Bias-Reducing Interventions," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 57-67, April.
    4. Jennifer L. Doleac & Luke C.D. Stein, 2013. "The Visible Hand: Race and Online Market Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(11), pages 469-492, November.
    5. Ayres, Ian & Siegelman, Peter, 1995. "Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 304-321, June.
    6. David C. Kimball & Martha Kropf, 2006. "The Street‐Level Bureaucrats of Elections: Selection Methods for Local Election Officials," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1268, November.
    7. Costa, Mia, 2017. "How Responsive are Political Elites? A Meta-Analysis of Experiments on Public Officials," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 241-254, December.
    8. Daniel M. Butler & David E. Broockman, 2011. "Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 463-477, July.
    9. White, Ariel R. & Nathan, Noah L. & Faller, Julie K., 2015. "What Do I Need to Vote? Bureaucratic Discretion and Discrimination by Local Election Officials," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 129-142, February.
    10. Timothy Besley & Stephen Coate, 2003. "Elected Versus Appointed Regulators: Theory and Evidence," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1176-1206, September.
    11. Granberg, Donald & Holmberg, Sören, 1992. "The Hawthorne Effect in Election Studies: The Impact of Survey Participation on Voting," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 240-247, April.
    12. Melissa J. Marschall & Amanda Rutherford, 2016. "Voting Rights for Whom? Examining the Effects of the Voting Rights Act on Latino Political Incorporation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 590-606, July.
    13. Weichselbaumer, Doris, 2003. "Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 629-642, December.
    14. Moore, Ryan T., 2012. "Multivariate Continuous Blocking to Improve Political Science Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 460-479.
    15. Michael J. Hanmer & Kerem Ozan Kalkan, 2013. "Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 263-277, January.
    16. Jim McCambridge & Kypros Kypri, 2011. "Can Simply Answering Research Questions Change Behaviour? Systematic Review and Meta Analyses of Brief Alcohol Intervention Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-9, October.
    17. Katherine Levine Einstein & David M. Glick, 2017. "Does Race Affect Access to Government Services? An Experiment Exploring Street‐Level Bureaucrats and Access to Public Housing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 100-116, January.
    18. Corrado Giulietti & Mirco Tonin & Michael Vlassopoulos, 2019. "Racial Discrimination in Local Public Services: A Field Experiment in the United States," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 165-204.
    19. Claire S. H. Lim, 2013. "Preferences and Incentives of Appointed and Elected Public Officials: Evidence from State Trial Court Judges," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1360-1397, June.
    20. Distelhorst, Greg & Hou, Yue, 2014. "Ingroup Bias in Official Behavior: A National Field Experiment in China," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 9(2), pages 203-230, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Halla, Martin & Kah, Christopher & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2021. "Testing for Ethnic Discrimination in Outpatient Health Care: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Germany," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 319, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gaddis, S. Michael, 2018. "An Introduction to Audit Studies in the Social Sciences," SocArXiv e5hfc, Center for Open Science.
    2. Mikula, Stepan & Montag, Josef, 2023. "Roma and Bureaucrats: A Field Experiment on Ethnic and Socioeconomic Discrimination," IZA Discussion Papers 16218, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Corrado Giulietti & Mirco Tonin & Michael Vlassopoulos, 2015. "Racial Discrimination in Local Public Services: A Field Experiment in the US," Working Papers 080, "Carlo F. Dondena" Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
    4. Michael Rochlitz & Evgeniya Mitrokhina & Irina Nizovkina, 2020. "Bureaucratic Discrimination in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: Experimental Evidence from Russia," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2010, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    5. Adman, Per & Larsson Taghizadeh, Jonas, 2020. "Public officials’ treatment of minority clients," Working Paper Series 2020:12, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    6. Pfaff, Steven & Crabtree, Charles & Kern, Holger L. & Holbein, John B., 2018. "Does religious bias shape access to public services? A large-scale audit experiment among street-level bureaucrats," SocArXiv 9khds, Center for Open Science.
    7. David Neumark, 2018. "Experimental Research on Labor Market Discrimination," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 799-866, September.
    8. Ash, Elliott & MacLeod, W. Bentley, 2021. "Reducing partisanship in judicial elections can improve judge quality: Evidence from U.S. state supreme courts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    9. Štěpán Mikula & Josef Montag, 2022. "Roma and Bureaucrats: A Field Experiment in the Czech Republic," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2022-01, Masaryk University, revised Feb 2023.
    10. Wibbenmeyer, Matthew & Anderson, Sarah & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2020. "Inequality in Agency Responsiveness: Evidence from Salient Wildfire Events," RFF Working Paper Series 20-22, Resources for the Future.
    11. Wittels, Annabelle Sophie, 2020. "The effect of politician-constituent conflict on bureaucratic responsiveness under varying information frames," SocArXiv 4x8q2, Center for Open Science.
    12. Nicholas R. Jenkins & Michelangelo Landgrave & Gabriel E. Martinez, 2020. "Do political donors have greater access to government officials? Evidence from a FOIA field experiment with US municipalities," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    13. Priyanga Gunarathne & Huaxia Rui & Abraham Seidmann, 2022. "Racial Bias in Customer Service: Evidence from Twitter," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 43-54, March.
    14. Castillo, Marco & Petrie, Ragan & Torero, Maximo & Vesterlund, Lise, 2013. "Gender differences in bargaining outcomes: A field experiment on discrimination," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 35-48.
    15. Christian Dippel & Michael Poyker, 2019. "How Common are Electoral Cycles in Criminal Sentencing?," NBER Working Papers 25716, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Druckman, James N. & Levy, Jeremy & Sands, Natalie, 2021. "Bias in education disability accommodations," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Luca Fumarco & Benjamin Harrell & Patrick Button & David Schwegman & E Dils, 2020. "Gender Identity, Race, and Ethnicity-based Discrimination in Access to Mental Health Care: Evidence from an Audit Correspondence Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 28164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Halla, Martin & Kah, Christopher & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2021. "Testing for Ethnic Discrimination in Outpatient Health Care: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Germany," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 319, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    19. Huailu Li & Kevin Lang & Kaiwen Leong, 2018. "Does Competition Eliminate Discrimination? Evidence from the Commercial Sex Market in Singapore," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1570-1608, June.
    20. Peter Bergman & Isaac McFarlin Jr., 2018. "Education for All? A Nationwide Audit Study of School Choice," NBER Working Papers 25396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:3:p:664-681. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.